81–90 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't apply to most laws. The law doesn't always require a victim or harm. Just look at speeding tickets or DUIs. You don't have to harm someone to wind up in jail
Both of those have clear harms, namely increased risks of traffic collisions.
Obvious disclaimer first: I do not condone imagery of child abuse, I believe this guy has some kind of psychological problem and needs professional help, AI-generated deepfakes can actually cause real harm and proper regulation is needed. With that out of the way: > the generative AI wrinkle in this particular arrest shows how technology is generating new avenues for crime and child abuse. Is it really child abuse if…
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? I think there is an empirical question one step beyond this. Does a pedophile who sees AI child porn get inured to it and then go on to try to act out fantasies with real victims? Or does this give pedophiles a way to satiate their desires indefinitely with only AI-based content, and lead to a lower portion abusing actual kids? A second order issue is that dist…
You don't choose who or what you like. Unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Or does this give pedophiles a way to satiate their desires indefinitely with only AI-based content, and lead to a lower portion abusing actual kids? By that logic, if I see regular porn I would not be interested in having sex. I assure you this is not the case, and your premise is flawed.
Way to dismiss a solid argument based on an anecdote. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that porn has nothing to do with seeking out real life sex, especially given how it has been widely studied that the amount of sex young adults are having has been steadily going down since the end of 90's.
We'll have to agree to disagree that it's a solid argument. I think it's weak and specious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? I think there is an empirical question one step beyond this. Does a pedophile who sees AI child porn get inured to it and then go on to try to act out fantasies with real victims? Or does this give pedophiles a way to satiate their desires indefinitely with only AI-based content, and lead to a lower portion abusing actual kids? A second order issue is that dist…
This comment is great but I feel we're also leaving out the "human element" that necessarily is part of these sorts of questions. Ultimately, we, as a people, don't want pedophiles, we don't want children abused, etc. These I feel are not controversial statements. However, allowing AI-generated CASM as a way to placate pedophiles does a few things: Firstly, it normalizes this material, even to the tiniest degree you'…
We could say the same about violence and its presence in media.
Obvious disclaimer first: I do not condone imagery of child abuse, I believe this guy has some kind of psychological problem and needs professional help, AI-generated deepfakes can actually cause real harm and proper regulation is needed. With that out of the way: > the generative AI wrinkle in this particular arrest shows how technology is generating new avenues for crime and child abuse. Is it really child abuse if…
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? Does that mean that AI-generated imagery of some protected group being harmed causes actual harm to that protected group? Not saying it doesn't, but it may be worth thinking about. Deepfakes of real children is real children being involved. Outside of that, my response is, “how would you create a compelling CSAM image with nothing resembling the target in the t…
Obvious disclaimer first: I do not condone imagery of child abuse, I believe this guy has some kind of psychological problem and needs professional help, AI-generated deepfakes can actually cause real harm and proper regulation is needed. With that out of the way: > the generative AI wrinkle in this particular arrest shows how technology is generating new avenues for crime and child abuse. Is it really child abuse if…
I can, will, and do create whatever imagery I want, no matter how I create it, and no matter what anyone else's opinion about that is. I will look at or think about that potentially depraved shit as often, hard, and long as I want, I will feel about that however I want, and no one in this big world of control freaks can or will do anything about any of that.
Many sovereign citizens(1) have in fact been prevented from doing things society deems illegal despite their attestations to the law’s applicability to them.
1
Obvious disclaimer first: I do not condone imagery of child abuse, I believe this guy has some kind of psychological problem and needs professional help, AI-generated deepfakes can actually cause real harm and proper regulation is needed. With that out of the way: > the generative AI wrinkle in this particular arrest shows how technology is generating new avenues for crime and child abuse. Is it really child abuse if…
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? How can you prove that zero children were involved at any point? How does the model generate CSAM without it either being in the training material or fed to the model as an input?
> How does the model generate CSAM without it either being in the training material or fed to the model as an input?
How can a skilled artist (when forced to) draw CSAM without ever having seen CSAM? How can they draw something without having seen the exact thing before? Both humans and LLMs are able to extrapolate information.
Obvious disclaimer first: I do not condone imagery of child abuse, I believe this guy has some kind of psychological problem and needs professional help, AI-generated deepfakes can actually cause real harm and proper regulation is needed. With that out of the way: > the generative AI wrinkle in this particular arrest shows how technology is generating new avenues for crime and child abuse. Is it really child abuse if…
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? The "harm" principle which is very popular these days to see if things are bad or good or punishable or not, I think it has a lot of problems. There are a lot of things that don't map onto this principle well. Social cohesion is a huge one. Something may not directly harm someone, but it can harm the fabric of society and many other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Or does this give pedophiles a way to satiate their desires indefinitely with only AI-based content, and lead to a lower portion abusing actual kids? By that logic, if I see regular porn I would not be interested in having sex. I assure you this is not the case, and your premise is flawed.
Except that there is a good bit of data suggesting that access to porn does reduce sexual assault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the difference between drugs and images is that the first amendment doesn’t protect drugs. This then becomes an argument about the limits of the first amendment.
The US constitution doesn't constrain French criminal law. But regardless, you're wrong in the US too: the first amendment absolutely does not "protect images", c.f. the fact that you can be prosecuted for distributing CSAM at all. We've already crossed the rubicon where we agree that the "speech" is illegal. The quibble under discussion here is whether or not the justification for the ban applies to synthetic images…